Mason and Dixon

[Thomas Eckhardt]

davemarc wrote:

>I can accept it as family lore, recounting something that might or might
>not have happened.  It puts Dixon in a good light, though under scrutiny
>the story turns out to be not as simple as "One day, Dixon rebuked a
>slaveowner and saved slaves."  Within its context, the moral gist of the
>story seems balanced by the arguable futility of Dixon's gesture:  Dixon
>helps to set slaves "free" in a setting where they would not be able to
>escape recapture and punishment.  As a koan-like puzzler, perhaps it'd be
>something like "Can one set slaves free when they are bound to be enslaved
>again?"

Hmm. Is that the impression the episode leaves on your mind? For me it is
more like "How nice to imagine that Dixon really did this" and thus I don't
think the moral gist is really balanced by the arguable futility of Dixon's
deed. But your reading is fine with me. I was just getting angry with all
those critics who claimed that Dixon's action is depicted as futile and
hopeless and nothing else. This view of things is exactly what M&D is up
against, I believe. I mean, I can enjoy a novel which expresses nothing but
utter hopelesness and despair as well as the next guy or girl, but this is
just not the case here.